MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB – June 23

Your space, but please, I have noticed an increase in personal sniping and cursing in comments, and it is not welcome or needed. You can be entertaining without being foul-mouthed and hurling f-bombs at everyone else.
And “are you stoned?” and all its variations really should be banned from this blog and all others. This comment has joined Hitler in the category of accusations that go too far to be of value.

Be Sociable, Share!

35 Responses to “BYOB – June 23”

  1. But accusing people of being crack addicts is the epitome of dignified!
    On another topic, I’m kinda longing for the days when sequels would just add a number to the title, what with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen title being announced.

  2. jeffmcm says:

    That’s a stupid title.

  3. leahnz says:

    (that’s meant to sound in your head like the huge black guy with the deep, deep voice who keeps agreeing with everything the other huge black guy says to eddie murphy in the jail cell scene in ‘trading places’)

  4. hcat says:

    Revenge of the Fallen? Terrible. Those guys at Dreamworks must be fuckin stoned.

  5. hcat says:

    On another note, in a post last week about 4 months 3 weeks…. I said that I couldn’t think of an american actress under forty that would be able to carry the lead role. I had completly blanked on Maggie Gyllenhaal. Fantastic in Sherrybaby, Stranger than Fiction, and Secretary, can’t wait to see her in Dark Knight, so far the most accomplished american actress of her generation. Can’t believe I overlooked her in the conversation.

  6. mysteryperfecta says:

    I want, I need, to voice my agreement that Revenge of the Fallen is a terrible sub-title.

  7. R Scott R says:

    Noah Forrest has a column up about Edward Norton, which is interesting, but it has one of those lines that drives me crazy.
    “There is nothing wrong with blockbuster films whose goal is to entertain, but. . .”
    Every summer it seems there’s someone who feels filmmakers should apologize for making films to entertain. Instead of the “but” he should just put a period; to entertain is the point.

  8. mysteryperfecta says:

    Question: will Eddie Murphy’s Meet Dave compete with The Love Guru for the biggest comedy bomb of the summer? It looks positively awful.

  9. R Scott R says:

    As if in answer to my comment, MCN had a link to a story about critics.
    “the cinematic commentariat tends to . . .[rate] many very profitable genres far lower than cinema-goers do: chick flicks, romcoms, horror, children’s films and any returning title that is followed by a number higher than 2. That attitude to sequels is typical of the fundamental philosophical difference between serious critics, who flinch at the idea that they know what they will get, and civilian audiences, who are often attracted by familiarity.”,,2287007,00.html

  10. hcat says:

    Sigh, once again I was not invited to join AMPAS.
    Thought the idea for Meet Dave was cute but after seeing the trailer there is no way I am going near it. That big puffy red font used by fox for the title should be considered the equivilent of the skull and crossbones poison warning.

  11. IOIOIOI says:

    Word, Heat. Word. I also love Revenge of the Fallen because it gives away what the movie is about. The Fallen returns, gets revenge, and I would imagine the Autobots and Decepticons will have to team up to stop Unicron’s emissary.
    Right now it comes across as a ridiculous title, but it should make more sense once the trailers come out. People should start to get that the Fallen is a pissed off transformer, and he wants REVENGE! A dish best served on an energon plate.

  12. Aladdin Sane says:

    Hitler and being stoned. Never thought I’d see the two equated together.

  13. Don Murphy says:

    wow the addled digits guy actually got something right

  14. Noah says:

    R Scott R, I think your follow-up quote to your original comment is instructive but (there’s that but again!) I can only speak for myself when I talk about film and personally speaking, I find nothing wrong with blockbuster movies unless there is a talented star who is clearly slumming it. Bruce Banner just isn’t a good role and for Norton to try and elevate it was a lost cause from the get-go; clearly the motivating factor here was not to make great art and that truly is okay BUT I do want to see artists make art, not pulp. And I consider Norton to be an artist.
    But I think that quote is quite interesting because it’s something I’ve written about a lot: critics and cinephiles see 200 films a year and the average person sees 10 to 12, so clearly I’m going to be a bit harsher in my criticisms than the average person simply because of the sheer volume of cinema that I take in. It’s hard to see 200 movies a year and enjoy every one of them…unless you’re Harry Knowles.

  15. William Goss says:

    “Question: will Eddie Murphy’s Meet Dave compete with The Love Guru for the biggest comedy bomb of the summer? It looks positively awful.”
    I love how, three weeks out, even Fox has no real push for it. We’ve seen the same trailer and poster for months, and I’ve yet to see any TV spots or know any family or friends aware of its existance.
    Then again, if you’ve gotta dump it, you might as well dump it up against Hellboy II and Journey 3-D and rake in whatever Murphy’s name alone can attract. Bumping it would just delay the inevitable.
    P.S. General survey – which did you guys find to be worse: The Love Guru or The Master of Disguise?

  16. Aladdin Sane says:

    Will, do I have to watch either of the films to answer that question?
    They both looked equally offensive.

  17. Who “fell” in Transformers and who needs “revenge?” I’m not being smarmy or sarcastic, I remember neither forebearers of revenge or falling happening in the first one. In fact, I remember nothing from the first one except Shia had a shirt of the band The Strokes.
    “TRANSFORMERS 2: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN” Starring Tarzan Jr., The B.A.G.’s girlfriend and the star of “The Rocker”

  18. IOIOIOI says:

    Mr. Lewis, here is your explanation from Wikipedia; “Although the Fallen’s origins are only suggested in his comic book appearance, they would be fully explained in Dorling Kindersley’s Transformers: The Ultimate Guide. One of the original thirteen Transformers created by Primus, the robot who would become the Fallen betrayed his creator by siding with Primus’s dark twin, the malevolent planet-eater, Unicron. In the final battle between Primus and Unicron, the Fallen fell victim to the same fate as his master, sucked through a black hole into another dimension. However, while Unicron emerged into another universe, the Fallen was not so fortunate, finding himself trapped in the ‘underspace’ between dimensions.”
    So this is the way to get UNICRON into this trilogy, and add a bunch of backstory to the transformers mythos. Which I may be alone in finding interesting.

  19. Aladdin Sane says:

    The Decepticons are the fallen. They did not conquer. Therefore they’ll come back with more bad guys and more stuff go boom.

  20. yancyskancy says:

    Didn’t about an hour of The Incredible Hulk get cut out before release? Maybe Norton’s artistry comes through there.

  21. Unicron? Really? That’s really the name? Good lord.

  22. William Goss says:

    In all fairness, Galactus was already taken.

  23. Yeah…but why not like “Warroir,” “Zillagod” or “Pegsusa.”

  24. LexG says:

    Well, I mean, not Transformers on their own, which were dorky kids’ stuff, but how awesome is it that Bay (ie, GOD) has turned some kiddie franchise into a celebration of ass-kickery, smoking hot chicks, technofetishization, and sun-burnt, oversaturated-colored worship of COMPLETE OWNAGE?????
    Iron Man is a nice movie and Favreau seems like a great, awesome guy… but he’s ultimately telling a classical story in a solid way. Whereas BAY IS COMMANDING YOU to RECOGNIZE, Tyler Durden-style, WHAT THE WORLD COULD AND SHOULD BE. BAY MOVIES are like MY TONY ROBBINS… an aesthetic that depicts everything we should aspire to in life: being awesome, owning, wearing sunglasses, being around bright colors, tanned chicks with midriffs, AND BECOMING THE MASTER OF ALL.
    (LexG available for any extra work/acting roles that would accommodate my 10-hour cubicle day schedule.)

  25. storymark says:

    “Unicron? Really? That’s really the name? Good lord.”
    Yep. the character was introduced in the 1985 animated movie. It was voiced by Orson Wells in his final role.

  26. jeffmcm says:

    “So this is the way to get UNICRON into this trilogy, and add a bunch of backstory to the transformers mythos. Which I may be alone in finding interesting.”
    IOI, it appears that you may have been right twice today.
    I was a Transformers fan as a kid, but all of this reminds me of that scene in Ghostbusters where Rick Moranis explains who Gozer is by telling us all “During the rectification of the Vuldranii, the Traveler came as a large and moving Torb! Then during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKittrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him, that of a giant Slor! Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you.”
    PS: I don’t hate Lex, but I do hate his penis.

  27. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff: you are hating on penises now? Good lord.

  28. jeffmcm says:

    Just when they do the talking.

  29. LexG says:

    “Which did you guys find to be worse: The Love Guru or The Master of Disguise?”
    Since I’m seen both, I feel I am qualified to speak to this. (Curiously, both have a Jessica Simpson-as-herself cameo.)
    They’re both bad in a lame, silly kind of way, though MOD is relatively family-friendly instead of scatalogical.
    Through the sheer fact that he doesn’t seem to be trying as hard and never seems to get his props as a stellar comedian, I’d give Carvey the edge for a slightly more affectionately bad movie, even if GURU is better made and (arguably) cast, and somewhat less torturous to endure.

  30. Jeff, did you find that quote on the net or know it off by heart? I hope it’s the latter.

  31. jeffmcm says:

    Half and half.

  32. The Big Perm says:

    I think you shouldn’t hate Lex’s penis. I feel sorry for it.

  33. LexG says:


  34. leahnz says:

    jeff, great moranis quote. (and slightly scary if you actually remembered even half of that by heart, i bow down to your skills)

  35. jeffmcm says:

    It was a movie I watched a Lot on VHS back in the day.
    I hope my point came through, though. I think one of the reasons Transformers was so popular was because it was giant robots battling in the middle of a normal American city. The cartoon made that simple idea work in two seasons of animated junk (which I own on DVD). Bringing in a lot of convoluted sci-fi gibberish about the Transformers ‘origin story’ and Unicron and Primus or even the Quintessons is going to be unwanted and confusing to the mainstream audience. I can see going there for the third or fourth Transformers movie but all they need to do for the second one is bring one or two extra elements, like Constructicons or Dinobots.
    But I’m not Don Murphy, filmmaker extraordinaire, so what do I know.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon